ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April 12,
    1973
    ELGIN JAYCEES, an Illinois
    Not-For-Profit
    Corporation
    #71—59
    v.
    TRI-COUNTY LANDFILL COMPANY,
    an Illinois corporation,
    et al
    JOHN E.
    JUERGENSMEYER, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ELGIN JAYCEES
    KENNETH F. MILES OF JORDAN
    & MILES, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF VILLAGE
    OF SOUTH ELGIN
    JAMES
    I.
    RUBIN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    EUGENE MURPHY OF MURPHY
    & PEARSON, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF TRI-COUNTY
    LANDFILL COMPANY
    ROBERT F.
    CASEY, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ELGIN LANDFILL COMPANY
    DENNIS
    F. FRANCE OF
    HOWARD,
    HOWARD
    & FRANCE, APPEARED ON. BEHALF
    OF GARDEN CITY DISPOSAL COMPANY AND ARC DISPOSAL COMPANY
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (BY SAMUEL T. LAWTON,
    JR.):
    This proceeding involves assertions
    of alleged land, air and
    water pollution occurring with respect to properties
    in the vicinity
    of South Elgin, Illinois,
    as will be more fully set forth below.
    Be-
    cause of the complexity
    of
    the case,
    an initial review of the plead-
    ings and a
    description
    of
    all
    parties
    is
    in order before consideration
    of
    the case on the merits.
    The initial complaint was filed by the Elgin Jaycees,
    an Illinois
    Not-For-Profit corporation against Tn-County Landfill Company,
    an
    Illinois corporation, and Jack Termaat, its Manager, alleging that
    the Respondents,
    in the operation of a landfill located on Route 25
    in
    the
    City
    of
    South
    Elgin,
    were
    in
    violation
    of
    Regulations
    with
    respect
    to
    “water,
    soil, leaching and air pollution” on specified
    dates
    in
    1970
    and
    1971.
    The
    essence
    of
    the
    complaint
    was
    that
    waste
    material deposited at the dump site, drained through a
    small
    creek
    which,
    in turn, was tributary to the Fox River.
    On May
    5, 1971,
    an amended complaint was filed, adding as parties
    Respondent Garden City Disposal Company, Edward and Everett Vander
    Molen, Arc Disposal Co.
    (originally designated
    “Art Disposal”),
    Wayne Disposal Co. and Edward Evenhouse, individually and as Registered
    Agent of Tn-County Landfill Company, asserting essentially the same
    alleged violations
    as in the original complaint and adding that
    7
    483

    because of the proximity of wells
    furnishing South Elgin’s water
    supply, the water supply was in danger of pollution.
    A second
    amended complaint was filed by the Elgin Jaycees on June
    8,
    1971,
    adding an additional paragraph to the complaint,
    as follows:
    “4.
    Statement of Manner and Extent to which Respon-
    dents are Claimed To Be In Violation:
    Respondents operate
    a series of related
    “sanitary1’ landfills covering several
    hundred acres, and dump all manner of waste products, super-
    ficially covering some of
    the material with soil.
    Septic
    tank sludge pumpings have also been dumped on the property.
    Waste material drains to a small creek which runs through the
    property, which has become badly polluted and which flows
    directly into the Fox River
    a short distance away.
    The
    landfills are in close proximity to the shallow wells of the
    Village of South Elgin Water Supply,
    and said water supply
    is in serious danger of pollution.
    The Fox River,
    the
    aforesaid creek, the subsoil waters and the air are badly
    polluted as a result of improper location and management
    of
    this operation.”
    On July 7,
    1971,
    a motion to dismiss was filed by Garden City
    Disposal Company and Arc Disposal Company, on the grounds that
    neither company had any interest in the landfill operation which
    was the subject of the complaint.
    On July
    15,
    1971,
    a petition for leave
    to intervene as a party
    complainant was filed by the Village of South Elgin, which interven-
    tion was permitted by order of the Hearing Officer on July 22, 1971.
    On September
    6,
    1971,
    a petition for leave to intervene as a
    party complainant was filed by the County of Kane which was granted
    on September 17, and on September 14,
    a petition for leave to inter-
    vene as party complainants was filed by Edward and Shirley Ross,
    Arthur H.
    Ross,
    George E. Schaffter, Edward and Sandra Plumley,
    James A. Greenberg, Eugene Sirrmierman and William Collier.
    On October
    22,
    1971,
    the Environmental Protection Agency of
    the State of Illinois filed a petition for leave to intervene as a
    complainant,
    together with its complaint as such intervenor.
    The
    complaint is directed against all of the Respondents heretofore
    named by
    the Elgin Jaycees in their complaints and alleged that the
    Tn-County Landfill Company and the Vander Molens, doing business as
    Elgin Landfill Company, each operate contiguous
    landfill sites on
    Route 25 in or near the municipality of South Elgin and that between
    July
    1,
    1970 and the close of the record in the proceeding, Tn-
    County Landfill Company and Elgin Landfill Company have discharged
    contaminants into certain underground waters of the State,
    so as to
    cause, either alone or in combination with matter from other sources,
    water pollution,
    in violation of Section 12(a)
    of the Environ-
    mental Protection Act and have deposited contaminants on the
    —2—
    7
    484

    land in such a place and manner so as
    to create
    a water pollution
    hazard,
    in violation of Section 12(d)
    of the Act.
    The entry of
    a cease and desist order and penalties
    in the maximum statutory amount
    are sought.
    On November
    9,
    1971,
    the Hearing Officer granted all of the
    foregoing petitions with respect to intervention and granted the
    Agency’s motion
    to add Edward and Everett Vander Molen, d/b/a
    Elgin Landfill Company,
    as
    a party respondent.
    On December
    6,
    1971, an amended complaint was filed by the
    Environmental Protection Agency against all of
    the foregoing Respon-
    dents alleging the discharge
    of
    contaminants into underground waters
    of the State so as
    to cause ground water pollution,
    in violation
    of Section 12(a)
    of
    the Act, and depositing contaminants upon the
    land so as
    to create a water pollution hazard in violation of
    Section 12(d)
    of the Act.
    Again, while all of the foregoing Respon-
    dents are named,
    the violations are alleged only against Tn-County
    Landfill Company and both Vander Molens, individually and d/b/a
    Elgin Landfill Company.
    On June 27,
    1972,
    a motion to dismiss was filed by Respondents,
    Elgin Landfill Company, Tn-County Landfill Company, Arc Disposal
    Company and Garden City Disposal Company, alleging the impropriety
    of John E. Juergensmeyer to act as Attorney for various complainants
    and intervenors herein because of alleged conflict of interest as
    a consequence of Mr.
    Juergensmeyer’s participation as a Hearing
    Officer of the Pollution Control Board in other proceedings of the
    Board.
    The motion asks that all complaints filed by Mr. Juergens-
    meyer be dismissed or, that in the alternative,
    he be barred from
    participating in the proceedings.
    On June 30,
    1972,
    we entered
    our Opinion and Order denying the motion.
    The foregoing represents the principal pleadings filed by
    the
    parties.
    Other motions were filed by the parties and orders entered
    by the Hearing Officer, principally with respect to Interrogatonies,
    inspections and pne-trial procedures, which are not alluded to.
    To
    the extent not heretofore disposed of, we ratify and confirm all
    actions taken by the Hearing Officer.
    We grant the motion of Arc Disposal Co. and Garden City Disposal
    Co.
    to dismiss as no violations have been demonstrated to have been
    committed by them.
    We find the record fails to support any allega-
    tions
    of
    air
    pollution
    and
    to
    the
    extent
    such
    allegations
    are
    pleaded
    in any of the original complaints, we find Respondents not to have
    been in violation of any regulation or statutory provision with
    respect thereto.
    We find
    that Edward Vander Molen and Everett
    Vander Molen, d/b/a Elgin Landfill Company, and Tn-County Landfill
    Company
    to have caused water pollution,
    in violation of Section 12(a)
    of the Act and to have created
    a water pollution hazard,
    in violation
    of Section 12(d)
    of the Act.
    —3—
    7
    485

    While the evidence demonstrates
    the probability that the
    Rules and Regulations with respect to Refuse Disposal Sites and
    Facilities have been violated on an episodal basis, we do not be-
    lieve in this respect that the evidence is sufficiently impressive
    to establish violations with the exception of Rule 402(a)
    requiring
    that reasonable assurance be taken so that leachate from the landfill
    does not contaminate the ground waters or streams
    in the area.
    We
    find Respondents,
    the Vander Molens,
    d/b/a Elgin Landfill Company
    and Tn-County Landfill Company have violated this provision.
    However,
    in view of the failure to specify the precise sections for which viola-
    tions of the Rules are asserted and the failure to make adequate proof
    other than as
    to Section 402(a), we will not impose any penalties with
    respect thereto.
    A penalty in the amount of $10,000
    is assessed against Edward
    Vander Molen and Everett Vander Molen, d/b/a Elgin Landfill Company and
    penalty in the amount of
    $10,000
    is assessed against Tn-County Landfill
    Company for violations
    of Sections
    12(a) and 12(d)
    of the Act,
    as above
    set forth.
    Respondents Vander Molens and Tn-County will be ordered to
    cease and desist the operation of their facilities
    so as
    to constitute
    water pollution or
    the threat of water pollution, and to
    take all neces-
    sary steps to comply with the applicable regulations and statutory provi-
    sions with respect to the operation of a refuse disposal site and
    facility.
    Hearings on this matter commenced on June 23, 1971 and concluded
    on February
    7,
    1973.
    The transcript of the hearing consists of 2,652
    pages; approximately 200 exhibits were introduced into the record by
    all parties.
    The facts and issues of the case,
    however, are not as
    complicated as the size of therecord or the time involved in the hearings,
    would suggest.
    Complainant’s Exhibits 1 and 2 set forth the location of the land-
    fill sites and contiguous areas in graphical fashion.
    Complainant’s
    Exhibit 1
    is a zoning map of Kane County, on which the location of the
    various sites involved have been placed;
    Exhibit 2
    is
    a Northeastern Illi-
    nois Planning Commission air photo map depicting the locations
    of the
    various sites involved,
    the proximity of the Village of South Elgin, the
    Fox River,
    the wells used for South Elgin’s water supply and the location
    of various experimental and testing wells
    that were involved in this
    proceeding.
    Throughout the proceeding,
    the property owned and operated by the
    Elgin Landfill Company has been referred to as Site A and the property
    owned and operated by Tn—County Landfill as Site
    B.
    Site A, con-
    taining approximately
    20 acres,
    is north of and contiguous with Site
    B, containing
    46 acres.
    Immediately to the west of both Sites A and
    Sites B and separated by the Chicago, Aurora and Elgin Railroad
    right-of-way
    is a tract referred to throughout as Site C.
    Site C
    contains two bodies of water designated Ponds
    II and III and a
    stream, which
    the complainants contend have been polluted both as
    to underground and surface waters located thereon as a consequence
    —4—
    7
    486

    of Respondent’s operations on Sites A and B.
    The principal com-
    plaint, however, relates not so much to the pollution of the waters
    found on Site C but rather to the future pollutional impact that
    operations of Sites A and B may cause.
    This,
    essentially,
    is the
    concern that continuation of pollution of the upper aquifer will
    ultimately cause pollution of the Fox River to the West, but of far
    greater concern,
    is the fear that the continued pollution of the
    ground and surface waters will,
    in time,
    if unabated, reach the
    lower aquifer, which is the source of South Elgin’s water supply
    and provides the water obtained from wells #2 and #3 used by the City.
    An orderly disposition of this proceeding requires first,
    an
    analysis of the character and operation of the landfills owned and
    operated by Respondents, Elgin Landfill Company and Tn-County
    Landfill Company.
    Next, consideration must be given to the nature
    of the water table and aquifiers involved
    in the proceeding, together
    with an analysis of the movement and character of the leachate
    present.
    Next, consideration must be given to the evidence of
    pollution,
    if any, both actual and threatened, with respect to
    Parcel C, the streams and pools involved,
    the upper and lower
    aquifiers, Well #3, being the source of
    S. Elgin’s water supply and
    the Fox River.
    Lastly, analysis must be made of the various tests
    employed by the parties to ascertain all of the foregoing matters,
    namely, the background concentrations of water in its natural condi-
    tion,
    the intensity and movement of leachate and the pollution,
    if
    any, resulting therefrom.
    Thomas J. Rolando, Village President of South Elgin, testified
    (R. 177 and following),
    particularly with respect to Complainant’s
    Exhibit
    1, which delineated the various sites involved in this pro-
    ceeding.
    He observed a dotted blue line on Site
    C, which until
    May of 1970, represented a lake varying in depth from 8
    to
    15 feet.
    The area around the lake was in the nature of a wildlife refuge.
    In May of 1970,
    a dam containing the water broke,
    causing the lake
    to recede several feet and ultimately, became a small pond.
    This
    pond was connected by a narrow stream to another shallow body of
    water.
    The pond became brownish—orange and developed a thick scum
    beneath it.
    Where previously fish had lived in the lake,
    no living
    organisms could be found in the pond.
    The black scum
    on the bottom
    of the pond had a sewage odor.
    Mr. Rolando next testified to his observations with respect to
    the operations of the two landfill sites.
    The incinerator ash pile
    was designated on Sites A and B on Exhibit 1.
    The ash was piled
    fourteen feet above the railroad right-Of—way and was anproximately
    100 feet in length and 30 feet in width and was located on both the
    mi-County and Elgin Landfill sites.
    The pile was first observed
    on August 10, 1970 and at the date of the witness’s testimony, had
    been removed from the Tn-County site but remained on the Elgin
    site.
    A prairie path located along the site of the Chicago-Aurora
    —5—
    7
    487

    Railroad
    had
    been
    covered
    with
    trees,
    which
    trees
    along
    the
    west
    edge
    of
    the
    Elgin
    Landfill
    site
    appeared
    to
    have
    died.
    The
    witness
    next testified to the source of South Elgin’s water supply, describing
    Well
    #3 which is located 3/4ths of a mile from the northwesterly
    edge of the Elgin landfill site and is 113 feet deep.
    Complainant’s
    Exhibits
    9 through
    14 were introduced depicting the condition of
    both landfill sites, which pictures, taken in 1971, showed open
    burning,
    exposed garbage, uncovered auto bodies and exposed standing
    water.
    Exhibit 15 depicts brownish—orange water in a ravine imme-
    diately west of
    the incinerator ash pile and the railroad right—of-
    way in Site D8.
    Exhibits 16 and 17 depict the condition of the brown
    lake identified as Pond III on Site C.
    Exhibit 18 depicts Pond III
    and the stream connecting
    it with Pond II,
    all on Site C.
    Exhibit
    19
    depicts the present ponds
    II and III.
    The water leaving the ponds
    on Site C flows west to the Fox River, approximately one mile away.
    Mr.
    Rolando testified further to the character of the incinerator ash
    pile observed on both sites, referring to Exhibit
    8,
    showing a portion
    of
    the
    pile having been excavated.
    Everett Vander Molen
    (R.
    338 and following)
    testified with
    respect to the operation of
    the Elgin landfill site.
    Since 1968,
    the site has been used exclusively for the deposit of incinerator ash.
    This witness testified
    to his correspondence with the Environmental
    Protection Agency in July of 1971.
    He had been advised that it
    would be necessary to construct a berm in order to obtain an Agency
    permit.
    A letter from the Director of the Environmental Protection
    Agency
    to the Vander Molens dated December 7,
    1970
    (Complainant’s
    Exhibit
    25) states,
    in part:
    “Leachate from your site
    is flowing into nearby
    ponds and other waterways.
    Sample results from
    previous inspections show that this leachate is
    grossly polluted;
    this water must be treated before
    allowing it to flow from your property.”
    The witness testified that construction of
    a berm was not possible
    because garbage would have to be excavated around all four
    sides
    of his property.
    When excavation was made to secure fill, water
    was observed.
    No berm approved by the Environmental Protection
    Agency has been constructed to date.
    The Vander Molens have been
    involved in the operation of the site since 1963.
    Jack Termaat, President of the Tn—County Landfill Company,
    commented on the company’s operation on Site
    B.
    In July of 1971,
    he also received an Environmental Protection Agency letter directing
    that
    a permit from the Agency was necessary,
    also indicating the
    necessity for the installation
    of a berm as a consequence of possible
    leaching
    (Complainant’s Exhibit 26).
    Work on the berm commenced but
    was not completed.
    Subsequently, notices of violation were received
    with respect to blowing litter,
    inadequate fencing and absence of
    cover.
    Open burning likewise occurred allegedly as a consequence of
    the
    —6—
    7
    488

    deposit of a hot load.
    The witness testified
    (R.
    464)
    that
    plans submitted to correct the present leachate situation have
    not been approved by the Agency.
    William N.
    Palmquist,
    a geologist employed by the Agency, testi-
    fied with respect to his observations as to the leachate condition
    of
    the two landfill sites
    (R.
    501 and following).
    From soil borings
    and test wells,
    he determined that the underground strata consists
    of an upper layer of sand,
    silt and gravel, an underlayment of clay,
    varying in thickness,
    under which
    is
    a thicker sand and gravel strata
    and below that, bedrock, establishing two basic aquifiers.
    The
    direction of flow in both aquifers
    is westerly and southwesterly
    toward the Fox River.
    As
    a result of the breaking of the dam,
    the
    velocity of movement in the upper aquifer has increased flow into
    the ponds on Site
    C.
    Monitoring wells had been established on and
    in the vicinity of Sites A and B.
    The witness had obtained samples
    from the monitoring wells and from the ponds on Site C during June,
    October and November of 1971.
    On the basis of these samples,
    the
    witness ascertained what was the natural background level
    for suspended
    solids and other contaminants
    in the natural ground waters,
    and
    compared these with a leachate sample collected on a small pond in
    the center of Site A.
    The results of the samples disclosed two types
    of wells whose samples contain different characteristics of effluent.
    Wells
    2,
    3 and 4 are located on Site
    B, generally south of the incin-
    erator ash pile and disclosed low dissolved solid readings, from
    which
    the witness concluded that the background concentrations would
    be in a range of from 400
    to
    600, whereas samples taken at Wells
    1,
    5 and 6 located westerly and southerly of the ash pile disclosed
    extremely high concentrations of dissolved solids, approximating
    ten times that noted in the former tests.
    Concentrations of
    calcium, sodium, potassium and chloride were also noted in the leachate
    sample taken from the pond on Site B, which corresponded in its com-
    position to samples
    taken from Wells ##l,
    5 and 6.
    This witness
    concluded that on the basis of the sampling,
    leachate from the two
    landfills have moved into Wells,
    1,
    5 and
    6,
    into Pond III and
    the pond west of the ash pile designated as D8
    (Ex.
    34 through 46).
    In his opinion, the leachate emanated from both the Elgin and Tn-
    County landfills but primarily from the Elgin landfill.
    It was also
    his belief that Pond
    II west of Pond III would be further contaminated
    by the flow from Pond III and that contamination would continue to flow
    in a westerly direction to a stream which ultimately discharges
    into
    the Fox River.
    Mr. Palmquist testified that,
    in his opinion,
    if the
    leachate condition continued unabated,
    it would ultimately enter the
    cone of depression of Well #3, which serve as the source of water for
    the Village of South Elgin.
    Water samples taken from Pond D8 and
    the
    brown
    orange
    pond El
    indicated
    that
    the
    water
    and
    the
    ultimate
    pollutional impact was travelling in the sub-surface sand and gravel
    in a westerly direction from the landfill sites.
    Exhibit 25 above
    referred to was introduced into the record, being a letter from the
    Environmental Protection Agency stating “leachate from your site
    is flowing into nearby ponds and other waterways.. .leachate
    is grossly
    —7—
    7
    489

    polluted.
    This water must be treated before allowing it to flow
    from your property.”
    Respondent’s Exhibits
    2 through
    9 were test
    results made by the Agency in September of 1970, which was the
    basis for the foregoing letter dated December
    7,
    1970.
    George Hughes
    CR.
    672 and following)
    a geologist employed by the
    Illinois State Geological Survey testified on the basis of his
    studies of soil borings made on Sites A, B and C, from which he con-
    cluded that there were at least two aquifers underneath the three
    sites.
    The Village of South Elgin draws its water from the sand and
    gravel aquifer immediately above the bedrock, which is an aquifer
    below the sunficial sand and gravel aquifer located in the top strata.
    The water level on all three sites appears to be within
    20 feet of
    the surface and occasionally closer.
    The source of leachate from the
    landfills
    is rain water moving from the top of the landfill.
    Another
    source would be ground water moving in the sides of the landfill.
    He estimated that with
    12 inches of rainfall during a year,
    13,200,000
    gallons of water would be leached from a 40-acre site.
    In his opinion,
    nothing would prevent the leaching of water laterally out of Sites A
    and B through the surficial sand.
    While a layer of silty clay with
    relatively low permeability may separate the two aquifers,
    he cannot
    state with certainty that a hydrological barrier exists between the
    two aquifers.
    A break in the clay might exist and the clay itself
    is not absolutely impervious.
    The cone of depression,
    a term
    used frequently throughout the hearing,
    is descriptive of the area
    from which South Elgin Well #3 draws
    its water.
    If,
    in fact,
    the
    layer sq~~atingthe upper and lower aquifers is not impervious,
    it
    is
    a
    fair assumption
    that
    pollutants
    present
    in
    the upper aquifer could
    reach
    the lower aquifer and constitute a pollution source to South
    Elgin’s drinking water supply furnished by Well #3.
    This witness
    testified to various methods of control of leachate including contain-
    ment,
    blocking, reversing direction of flow, collection and treatment.
    The success of any one of
    these methods would be dependent on many
    variables,
    including the characteristics of the soil,
    the zone of
    saturation and the character of the materials creating the leachate.
    In his judgement,
    no barriers exist at the present time,
    to prevent
    the leachate from moving laterally from Sites A and B.
    George Schafften,
    (R.
    767), Edward Ross
    (R.
    778)
    and Arthur H.
    Ross
    (R.
    805)
    testified to the change in the character of the stream
    and ponds on Site C, subsequent to the breaking of the dam which
    drained off the preexisting lake.
    Each owns land on which a well
    exists immediately west of Site
    C.
    George Schaffter testified
    that when the dam broke in May,
    1970,
    the stream became clay-colored,
    foam formed on the ice after freezing,
    frogs were killed and in the
    spring,
    sludge accumulated possessing a sewage-like odor which lasted
    through the summer.
    This witness made
    a significant observation
    that when the South Elgin Well
    #3 was filled in in April of 1963,
    all
    of the water drained from his well
    CR.
    770)
    .
    The interrelation
    between the ponds and streams on Site C,
    the stream on Mr. Schaffter’s
    —8—
    7
    490

    property, his well and the South Elgin well became evidence and
    the
    interrelation
    between
    the
    upper
    and
    lower
    aquifer
    transcend
    the
    realm
    of
    speculation.
    Edward
    Ross
    owns
    a
    90—foot
    well
    about
    approximately
    one-half
    mile
    east
    of
    Sites
    A
    and
    B.
    In
    recent
    months
    he
    has
    noticed
    odor
    from his well water which did not previously exist.
    When the dam
    broke,
    he noticed a septic tank odor from the stream running through
    his property.
    Later, the creek bottom turned black and fish no longer
    were
    present.
    Edward G.
    Haas testified with respect
    to
    the landfill operations
    being conducted on Sites A and B, and also confirmed the sequence
    of
    events
    following the breaking of
    the
    dam
    on
    Site C and the dis-
    ~oloration and odors emanating from Pond
    III.
    He
    has
    observed
    excavations on Site A for cover material used
    ai the ash pile.
    These
    excavations have left open large holes exposing garbage that had been
    previously dumped.
    The covering of
    the ash pile has been on a daily
    basis only for the last six months.
    In 1970,
    he observed the dumping
    of liquids on the Tn—County landfill site.
    Tie observed dumping by
    a sludge removal service of what appeared to he motor oil.
    Also ob-
    served was the dumping of an orange liquid from
    a chemical company
    truck.
    For approximately twelve months after June,
    1970,
    this witness
    sa~no evidence
    of
    daily cover
    on
    either
    Sites
    A
    or
    B.
    The
    most
    significant
    evidence
    with
    respect
    to
    the
    movement
    and
    character
    of
    the
    leachate
    westward
    from
    the
    landfill
    sites
    to
    Site
    C
    and
    beyond,
    is
    the
    testimony
    and
    exhibits
    of
    Drs.
    Lawrence
    A.
    DuBose
    and
    Wilbur
    Simon.
    Dr. Lawrence A.
    Du3ose,
    (H,
    491)
    President of
    resting Service
    Corporation, conducted
    a series of
    tests based
    on
    the
    measurements
    made
    at
    various
    testing
    wells
    and
    locations
    on
    and
    west
    of
    the
    landfill
    sites
    involved.
    The
    results
    of
    these
    tests
    are
    contained
    in
    Complain-
    ant’s
    Exhibit
    32 and are entered
    on
    Complainant’s Exhibit
    1.
    His
    affidavit sets forth that he has conducted tests with respect to both
    landfill properties
    with
    a view of determining what,
    if any, pollution
    or leachate has been caused
    by and
    is
    escaping
    from the landfill sites.
    Tests were
    made on May
    28,
    June
    14,
    June
    28, October
    7 and November 23,
    1971.
    Samples were taken at
    six
    monitoring wells previously referred
    to,
    Wells
    2,
    3
    and
    4
    being
    located
    on
    Site
    B
    and
    Wells
    1,
    5 and
    6
    located
    west
    of
    Sites
    A
    and
    B,
    all
    of
    which wells
    are
    likewise
    de-
    picted
    on
    Comp1ainant~s
    Exhibit
    1.
    The principal parameter tested
    were
    with
    respect
    to
    total
    dissolved
    solids.
    The
    results
    of
    these
    tests
    are
    noted
    as
    follows:
    7
    491

    Wells
    Date of Test
    Total Dissolved
    (all 1971)
    Solids
    (mg/l)
    2
    May 4
    640
    May
    11
    358
    August
    20
    608
    September 24
    304
    3
    June 11
    892
    September
    24
    380
    4
    May
    4
    468
    May
    11
    404
    June
    11
    540
    September
    24
    336
    1
    May
    4
    6590
    May
    11
    4590
    June
    11
    5340
    August
    20
    6780
    August 30
    6180
    September
    24
    5880
    October
    18
    4700
    5
    August
    12
    4324
    August
    30
    4665
    September
    24
    7128
    October
    18
    5300
    6
    August
    20
    4716
    August
    30
    4000
    September
    24
    4020
    October
    18
    3900
    Tests were also taken at surface locations designated
    as D7,
    D8,
    D9 and D10.
    D7, being bOated north of the landfill sites, D8,
    west on the periphery of the landfill sites, D9 on Site C south of
    the
    brown orange pond, and DlO in the stream north of Pond II.
    All tests
    were made on May 27 and reflect the following total dissolved solids
    readings:
    D7
    402
    D8
    2260
    D9
    2000
    010—
    536
    The
    tests
    made
    at
    both
    of
    the
    wells
    and
    the
    surface
    water
    test
    sites support the contentions that the heavy TDS readings as a consequence
    of the leachate from the landfill sites.
    Wells
    2,
    3 and 4, while
    located on Site B,
    are south of the incinerator ash pile, whereas
    wells
    1,
    5
    and
    6
    are
    west
    of
    the
    incinerator
    ash
    pile
    and
    in
    the
    demonstrated
    path
    of
    flow
    of
    leachate
    from
    the
    landfill
    sites.
    Complainant’s
    Exhibit
    1
    depicts
    that
    the
    incinerator
    ash
    pile
    is
    on
    both
    the
    Elgin
    and
    Tr.i-County
    landfill
    sites.
    D7,
    north
    and
    east
    of
    the
    landfill
    site,
    reflects
    an
    extremely
    low
    dissolved solid reading.
    —10—
    7
    492

    Site Dl0, north of Pond II likewise discloses
    a natural level of
    dissolved
    solids,
    whereas
    D—8,
    immediately
    west
    of
    the
    ash
    pile
    and
    D9,
    contiguous
    with
    the
    brown
    Pond
    III,
    disclose
    high
    dissolved
    solid
    readings.
    As
    a
    result
    of
    the
    tests
    conducted
    by
    Dr.
    DuBose,
    the
    following
    conclusions
    are
    stated
    by
    him:
    “1.
    That leachate and pollution is moving by ground water
    from its source,
    Elgin Landfill Company site, westerly
    and southerly from said Elgin Landfill Company site,
    into a stream shown on said map Complainant’s
    Exhibit
    1
    west of said Elgin Landfill Company site,
    and is polluting
    said stream by way of said pond shown on said map exhibit
    in brown, and which results in pollution being caused
    downstream.
    2.
    That such pollution and leachate has its source on
    Elgin Landfill Company site and moves westward as ground
    water and much of it collects in said pond on the sur-
    face of same.
    3.
    That if the operation
    of
    said
    Elgin
    Landfill
    Company
    site continues as presently operated,
    in some years
    it
    is possible that the leachate from same will pollute the
    South Elgin Public water supply.
    4.
    If an adequate barrier
    is not placed
    to
    contain the
    leachate from both of said landfills,
    it
    is possible that
    leachate from both of said landfills could pollute said
    South Elgin water supply.”
    It
    should
    be
    noted
    that
    recently
    adopted
    Regulations
    of
    the
    Pollution
    Control
    Board
    limit
    dissolved
    solids
    in
    public
    and
    food-
    processing water
    supply
    to
    500
    mg/b
    (Rule
    204)
    and
    for
    general
    use
    waters to 1,000 mg/b.
    Drinking water standards are set forth in
    Complainant’s Exhibit 112 set
    a 500 total dissolved solids limit
    as
    a health standard (Page
    7).
    Wilbur Simon, an analytical chemist who testified on behalf of
    the Environmental Protection Agency
    (R.
    1075)
    took water samples
    from various locations involved in the proceeding.
    Exhibit 120 is
    a sample taken on September 23,
    1971 from the orange pond located on
    Site C.
    The samples smelled like sewage.
    Exhibit 121 was a sample
    taken on September
    23,
    1971 from Site B.
    Exhibit 122,
    taken from
    the orange pond,
    had a smell of acid.
    Exhibit 124, being a sample
    from the creek flowing into Pond II, was clear and did not smell.
    Exhibit 125 is
    a sample of the incinerator ash taken from the Elgin
    landfill.
    Exhibit 126
    is the result of Simon’s test of placing the
    ash on a filter and beaching the solids with distilled water.
    From
    this,
    the witness concluded that the leachate was originating pri-
    marily from the Tn-County landfill because of the iron content in the
    —11-
    7
    493

    samples.
    A sample from the Tn-County Landfill reflected a
    total dissolved solid reading of 6786.
    Exhibit 126, being leachate
    from
    the Elgin landfill disclosed total dissolved solids of 1808.
    This witness, both on the stand
    and
    in
    the
    affidavit, concluded that
    both landfills are operated on land unsuitable for landfill sites,
    since,
    in his judgement,
    they were causing pollution of
    the
    South
    Elgin
    well
    and
    discharging
    leachate
    into
    underground
    water.
    He stated
    that
    there
    was
    oil
    and
    sewage
    on
    the
    pond
    on
    Site
    C
    which,
    in
    his
    opinion,
    came
    from
    the
    Tn-County
    landfill.
    BOD
    samples
    taken
    at
    the
    Tn-County
    landfill
    were
    comparable
    to
    BOD
    measurements
    made
    at
    the
    orange
    pond.
    In
    his
    judgernent,
    the
    Tn-County
    Landfill
    is
    a
    major
    source
    of
    acids,
    iron,
    mercury
    and
    ammonia,
    which
    have
    caused
    a change in the pH
    of
    the
    South
    Elgin
    well
    water.
    Two
    written
    state-
    ments by Dr. Simon were received into evidence, the first being
    an Affidavit dated December
    6, 1971
    (Exhibit 113) and the second being
    a report entitled “The Contamination of the South Elgin Water Supply
    by Sanitary Landfill Omerations” dated December 27,
    1971
    (Ex.
    115).
    Tests made on South Elgin Well
    #3
    disclose
    an
    increase
    of
    total
    dissolved solids from 396 in
    1962
    to
    636
    in
    November,
    1971,
    which,
    ~n
    the
    opinion of the witness, was caused by the proximity of the
    landfills
    and
    resulting
    leachate.
    Three
    specific
    testing
    procedures
    are tabulated in Exhibit 1l3~
    the change in dissolved solids with
    respect to samples from South Elgin Well #3;
    the changes in surface
    waters between the landfills and Well #3, and the chemical content
    of
    surface
    ponds
    on
    landfill
    sites
    east
    of
    Well
    #3.
    High
    total
    dissolved
    solids
    readings
    in
    the
    ponds
    on
    Site
    C
    and
    low
    TDS
    readings
    from well water taken several hundred feet from the Fox River served
    by the same aquifer as Well #3 are reflected.
    The study of chemical
    content of surface ponds on
    the
    landfill
    sites
    indicates
    that
    the
    landfill sites are contributing
    to the pollution of the underground
    water.
    Contaminants
    from the Elgin landfill in the form of soluable
    inorganic salts are
    contained in the
    Tn-County
    landfill,
    together
    with
    organic
    liquids.
    The conclusions of Mr. Simon based on the
    foregoing
    tests
    ,all
    tabulated
    in
    Complainant’s
    Exhibit
    113,
    are
    as follows:
    “1.
    Both landfills are discharging leachate into the under-
    ground water.
    2.
    Both landfills are operating on land unsuitable for
    landfill sites.
    3.
    The fast flow of the underground water is toward the
    South Elgin Well
    #3, only because the natural flow is
    diverted by the South Elgin well.
    4.
    Chemical changes have occurred in surface waters 500
    feet
    west
    of
    the
    landfills.
    5.
    Changes have occurred in the acidity, dissolved solid
    content and mercury concentration of South Elgin Well
    #3.
    —12—
    7
    494

    6.
    Landfill operations should be terminated as soon as
    possible to protect the people and animals from water
    borne diseases.
    7.
    These
    conclusions
    are
    based
    in
    part
    on
    fluctuations
    in
    the
    chemical
    content
    of
    the
    Village
    of
    South
    Elgin
    Well
    #3 water.”
    The summary of tests made by
    Mr.
    Simon on September 24,
    November
    8
    and
    November
    22,
    1971
    and
    reflected
    in
    his
    affidavit
    identified
    as
    Exhibit 113,
    discloses high dissolved solid counts from measuring
    stations
    in the vicinity of the ponds designated II and III west
    of the landfill sites, but relatively low readings from waters north
    and tributary to these ponds.
    Likewise, dissolved solid readings
    taken
    west of Site C reflect a diminishing dissolved solid count as
    the
    readings
    progress
    westerly.
    These
    tests
    are
    entered
    on
    both
    Complainant’s
    Exhibits
    1
    and
    2.
    The statement submitted as Exhibit 115 entitled
    “The Contamina-
    tion of the South Elgin Water Supply by Sanitary Landfill Operations”
    analyzes both inorganic and biodegradable chemicals originating from
    four sources
    --
    septic tanks,
    sanitary landfills,
    the Fox River and
    the Kenyon farm.
    The report traces the various pollution indicators
    from the Tn-County and Elgin landfills to waters east of the land-
    fills, private wells southwest of the landfills,
    ponds and a creek
    west of the landfills to the Fox River and to the South Elgin Well
    #3.
    The conclusion of the report is that organic chemicals arc the major
    pollutants of all waters studied,
    that incinerator ash buried on
    both landfills
    is the major source of soluable inorganic salts,
    that Tn-County Landfill is the major source of organic chemicals
    present in incinerator ash,
    that Elgin Landfill is the major source
    of inorganic chemicals present in incinerator ash, that Tn-County
    Landfill is the major source of strong acids,
    iron, mercury and
    ammonia and that the South Elgin landfill is polluted
    by
    organic
    chemicals and iron.
    The Fox River does not pollute the aquifer from
    which South Elgin draws its water and that the creek which flows through
    the properties southwest of the landfill has been polluted by Tn-County
    Landfill.
    The report states that Elgin Well
    #3 has been receiving
    biodegradable and chemically oxidized organic wastes, which have
    been introduced into the South Elgin aquifier.
    The major source of
    organic wastes
    in the
    landfills
    is
    the
    refuse
    buried
    in
    the Elgin
    landfill and the stable cbeanings,
    septic tank sludge, oil sludge,
    organic solvents and garbage buried at the Tn-County landfill,
    together
    with
    run—off
    from
    cow
    manure
    fertilizer.
    Material
    buried
    in the Tn-County landfill
    is alleged to be responsible for the
    ammonia content in
    the
    escaping
    leachate
    and
    the
    ammonia
    found
    in
    the
    orange
    pond.
    BOD content of water was used
    to trace the flow of
    leachate from Tn-County landfill, which left the site in the vicinity
    —13—
    7
    495

    of Test Well #1 and enters the south end of the orange pond.
    After
    emerging from
    the
    ground,
    the biodegradable chemicals diminish rapid-
    ly before entering the Fox River.
    Table #2
    in the report indicates
    that leachate from Tn—County Landfill contaminates water
    in every
    direction and that this water enters the aquifer of all public and pri-
    vate wells
    in the vicinity.
    Private wells drawing from the same
    aquifier as the Elgiri well were tested for dissolved solids.
    Averaged
    dissolved solid testing by Dr. Simon of the test wells used by Dr.
    DuBose produced essentially similar corresponding measurements with
    respect to all wells
    involved,
    Wells
    #1,
    5 and 6, reflecting high
    total dissolved solids measurements and Wells
    #2,
    3 and 4 correspond-
    ingly low.
    In
    addition,
    analysis
    of
    the
    orange
    pond
    was made reflecting
    a
    BOD
    of
    630
    on
    September
    23,
    1970,
    which
    was
    the
    same
    value as the
    black
    pond
    at
    the
    southeastern
    edge
    of
    the
    Tn-County
    landfill.
    Spectographic analysis
    of the orange solids show constituents
    of
    incinerator ash.
    On
    the
    basis
    of
    the
    testing
    and
    examination
    per-
    formed
    by this witness, the following conclusions are stated:
    “1.
    South Elgin Well No.
    3
    is contaminated by leachate
    from incinerator ash, by solutions of organic and
    inorganic
    chemicals,
    and
    by
    products
    of
    biodegradation.
    2.
    The
    pollutants
    originate
    at
    the
    Tn-County
    Landfill
    and the Elgin Landfill.
    Leachate escapes
    from
    both
    landfills and enters the aquifer from which South
    Elgin obtains
    its drinking water.
    3.
    Dead
    trees
    to
    the
    west
    and
    northwest and living trees
    to
    the
    north
    of
    Elgin
    Landfill
    indicate
    that
    leachate
    is
    escaping
    laterally
    westward
    from
    Elgin
    Landfill.
    4.
    Elgin Landfill Company is responsible for the leachate
    from incinerator ash.
    (some of its ash is buried on
    other properties)
    5.
    Tn-County Landfill Company
    is responsible for the
    organic
    chemicals,
    ammonium
    iron,
    mercury
    and
    iron
    in
    the
    South
    Elgin
    Well
    No.
    3.
    6.
    Kenyon’s
    creek
    is
    being
    polluted
    by
    the
    landfills.
    7.
    The
    Fox
    River
    does
    not
    pollute
    the
    South
    Elgin
    well.
    8.
    An orange pond about
    800
    feet
    west
    of
    the
    landfills
    is being polluted
    by
    leachate
    escaping
    from
    the
    Tn-County
    landfill.
    9.
    No
    further
    landfill
    operations
    should
    be
    conducted
    on
    the
    present
    sites
    or
    on
    the
    proposed
    sites
    east
    of
    the
    Village
    of
    South Elgin.
    —14—
    7
    496

    10.
    A
    scientific
    study
    should
    bemade
    of
    incineration
    techniques which could lead to the production of
    a
    completely
    insoluble
    ash.
    11.
    On
    the
    basis
    of
    state
    and federal standards which
    limit BOD entering rivers and sewage treatment
    plants
    (a)
    the water from beneath the landfills
    cannot
    be
    pumped
    into
    the
    Fox
    River
    Without
    pre-
    treatment.
    (b)
    the
    water
    from
    beneath
    the
    landfills
    cannot
    be
    pumped
    to
    a
    sewage
    plant
    without
    pre-
    treatment.”
    In further substantiation of the leachate movement from the
    landfill sites westwardly was the dye test conducted by Dr. DuBose,
    noted
    in
    Complainant’s
    Exhibit
    133.
    On
    August
    19,
    1971,
    Testing
    Service Corporation,
    under the direction of Dr. DuBose, introduced
    a fluorescent dye at two locations at the west end of the Elgin
    Landfill site.
    After introduction of the dye, water samples were
    taken from monitoring wells
    1,
    5 and
    6 on August 30, August 30,
    September
    2, September 24, October
    18 and December 17, 1971
    and on April
    10,
    1972.
    The samples were viewed under ultra-violet
    light and a green fluorescence noted in some samples.
    However,
    no samples taken on or before December 19 indicated the presence
    of the dye.
    On April
    10,
    1972,
    it was noted that a number of areas
    west
    of
    Site
    A
    contained
    ponded
    water
    in
    which
    leaves,
    stones
    and
    dead branches had been stained a light green color.
    Samples
    of
    such
    water
    and
    some
    of
    the
    leaves,
    were
    tested,
    which
    lead
    to
    the conclusion that the samples contained characteristics comparable
    to that found in the fluorescent dye.
    The ponds where the green
    was noted were approximately 150 feet west of Wells #5 and 6.
    Smaller ponds to the north do not contain the green material.
    Dr. DuBose concludes as follows:
    “Our
    opinion
    is
    that
    the
    dye
    has
    moved
    from
    the
    Elgin
    Landfill westerly,
    in the approximate general direction that we
    had
    previously
    predicted.
    Rainfall
    after
    January
    1,
    1972,
    was
    sufficient to develop the gradient necessary to move the dye.
    In the interim between December 17,
    1971 and April 10,
    1972,
    the
    dye
    actually
    moved
    west
    past
    our
    monitoring
    wells
    and
    surfaced
    as
    seeps
    at
    a
    number
    of
    locations
    we
    have
    referred
    to as
    ‘small ponds’,
    “We
    believe
    that
    the
    dye tests confirm our previously made
    statement that leachate has been leaving the Elgin Landfill site
    and
    moving
    west.
    Dr.
    Krawetz’s
    report
    with
    respect
    to
    said
    five
    April
    10,
    1972
    samples
    supplements
    this
    report
    and
    is
    attached hereto.”
    —15—
    7
    497

    The affidavit of Ed O’Brien was received in evidence as Com-
    plainant’s
    Exhibit
    116.
    On the basis of his experience of 41 years
    as a well digger, and his familiary with the terrain ~nd hydrological
    aspects
    of
    the immediate area,
    he arrived at the following conclusions:
    “1.
    That the zone of influence or cone of depression of
    Well
    No.
    3
    of
    the
    Village
    of
    South
    Elgin
    extends
    as
    fan
    as,
    or beyond,
    the red dotted line running northeasterly
    and southwesterly, northwest of the existing landfill
    sites
    on
    said
    Complainant’s
    Exhibit
    2.
    2.
    That
    because
    of
    the
    hydraulic
    connection
    and
    the
    area
    of
    the
    cone
    of
    depression
    of
    said
    Well
    No.
    3,
    any
    ground
    water,
    pollution
    or
    contamination
    escaping
    from
    said
    landfill
    sites,
    would
    be
    drawn
    to
    and
    would
    threaten
    Pollution
    of
    the
    South
    Elgin
    public
    water
    supply,
    as
    presently
    constituted
    in
    said
    Well
    No.
    3.
    3.
    That
    any
    new
    well
    which
    might
    have
    to
    be
    sunk
    for
    the
    future
    public
    water
    supply
    of
    the
    Village
    of
    South
    Elgin
    would
    have
    to
    be
    located,
    to reach the maximum water
    supply, south and east of existing Well
    #3 and, there-
    fore,
    in closer proximity
    to the existing landfill sites.
    4.
    That while the existing landfill operations may not
    yet
    have
    contaminated
    any
    wells
    in
    the
    South
    Elgin
    area,
    I
    consider
    very
    great
    the
    threat
    that
    this
    will
    happen
    in the near future.”
    We
    believe
    the
    complainants
    have
    established
    their
    burden
    of
    proof.
    Witnesses
    of
    Respondents
    do
    not
    refute
    the
    foregoing
    conclusions.
    Harold
    C.
    Hall, representing Tn-County Landfill Company submitted
    a written statement and also testified as an adverse witness.
    In
    his written statement #1, he stated that the major source of contamina-
    tion of the upper aquifier is the leachate generated by the sanitary
    landfill
    (R.
    5)
    and that the movei~entof ground water
    is
    in a westerly
    or southwesterly direction,
    In his view,
    the historical background
    of water quality for total dissolved solids
    (TDS)
    is between 400 and
    450
    ppm.
    He believed that all tests conducted by the parties were
    valid and that the evidence demonstrated that the leachate had moved
    from the landfill to Pond
    #3 and that there
    is likelihood
    that some
    of the dissolved minerals existing on Site C was derived from the
    landfill
    (H.
    1700-1702).
    The surface ponds and streams on Site C
    are discharge areas
    of the contents of the upper aquifier
    (R.
    1708)
    and that
    the
    upper aquifier
    is contaminated and polluted by both
    Sites A and B
    (R.
    1708—1712—1781)
    .
    It was his view, however,
    that
    since all of
    the pollution took place on Site C,
    the hazard of water
    pollution did not exist.
    On. James
    E. Hackert also testified on behalf of Tn-County
    and agreed with the conclusions of
    Mr.
    Hall.
    He observed the
    —16—
    7
    498

    and
    this
    is
    a condition that we cannot allow
    to continue where
    the health and well-being of the community are involved.
    The evidence establishes that it,
    in fact, drinking water becomes
    characterized by the TDS counts that ~are present in the portions
    of the upper aquifer, this could have
    a serious and disastrous effect
    on the citizens of South Elgin.
    We will not tolerate this danger,
    notwithstanding
    the
    fact
    that
    the
    time
    may
    be
    distant
    when
    such
    pollution
    would,
    in
    fact,
    take
    place.
    We
    will
    not
    direct
    revocation
    of
    such
    permits
    as
    Respondents
    may have heretofore received from
    the
    Department
    of
    Public
    Health
    but
    we will
    direct
    that
    immediate
    and sufficient steps be taken to abate the pollutional discharge
    from Respondent’s properties.
    We are not satisfied that merely because
    Site C may be in private ownership that Respondents are free to pollute
    it indiscriminately.
    The Environmental Protection Act provides no
    such
    exemption.
    Nor do we adopt Respondent’s arguments that the
    movement westward will produce an attenuation of pollutional discharge
    that will remove all danger.
    It
    is abundantly clear that the ponds
    and
    streams
    on
    Site
    C
    are
    the
    waters
    of
    the
    State
    and
    they
    have
    been
    polluted
    from
    the
    leachate
    from
    Sites
    A
    and
    B.
    It
    is
    further
    abundantly
    clear
    that
    a
    continuation
    of
    this
    condition
    unabated
    will
    in
    all
    likelihood
    create
    the
    pollution
    of
    the
    Fox
    River
    into
    which
    the
    streams
    flow
    and
    the
    even
    more
    dangerous
    possibility
    of
    pollution
    of
    the lower aquifer and the drinking water of the Village
    of
    South
    Elgin, which the evidence indicates has already begun.
    We
    will
    order
    Respondents
    to
    immediatey
    cease
    and
    desist
    all
    wtivities
    creating
    a
    condition
    of
    water
    pollution
    or
    the
    threat
    of water pollution and to take immediate steps
    to abate
    the
    leachate
    discharge from their sites.
    The proposals made to the Board
    in this
    respect
    have
    been
    varied
    and
    include
    the possibility of containment,
    the
    removal
    of
    refuse
    and
    treatment
    of
    leachate.
    These
    are
    matters
    which,
    on
    the
    state
    of
    the
    record,
    we
    are
    not
    in
    a
    position
    to
    direct
    in
    any
    definitive
    manner,
    but
    will
    mandate
    the
    Agency
    to
    require
    such
    steps as are necessary to achieve the ultimate result of pollution
    abatement,
    both
    present
    and
    threatened.
    This
    may
    include
    the
    construc-
    tion
    of
    berms
    and
    such
    other
    and
    further
    steps
    as
    are
    needed
    to
    ter-
    minate the pollutional discharge and achieve abatement.
    Penalty
    in the amount of $10,000
    is assessed against Respondents, Edward
    and
    Everett
    Vander
    Molen,
    d/b/a
    Elgin
    Landfill
    Company
    and
    Tni-County
    Landfill Company, severally,
    for permitting
    the condition of water
    pollution and threat of water pollution found herein.
    All other
    Respondents are discharged.
    IT IS THE ORDER of
    the Pollution Control Board:
    1.
    Respondents,
    Edward and Everett Vander Helen, d/b/a Elgin
    Landfill Company and Tn-County Landfill Company shall
    cease and desist the causing of water pollution and the
    threat of water pollution on
    their respective sites.
    —18—
    7
    499

    minerological changes that had occurred on Sites C, but could
    not
    differentiate
    between
    Site
    A
    and
    site B as contributors (R.2017~
    18),
    that
    an
    undesirable
    chang~~
    has
    taken
    place
    in
    the
    water
    qualfly
    on
    Site
    C
    and
    that
    the
    leachate
    nw~ves in
    a
    westerly
    direction
    from
    Sites
    A
    and
    B.
    This
    view
    is
    supnorteo
    by
    Jo~.ph
    S.
    Rempe,
    who
    testified
    on
    behalf
    of
    Ebgin
    Land
    f~jl±
    ~L
    2400’~
    .
    He
    believed
    that
    it
    was
    possible
    that the buachate han
    re~(’)-~’i
    the
    btown
    pond
    (Pond
    III)
    and
    that
    the
    creek running throug
    5r~
    and the two ponds were waters of the State
    The
    foregoina
    e\;idenc
    ~ubsLantiates
    the
    position
    of
    the
    complair—
    ants
    and
    the
    En~iromre:,LiJ
    Ic-otection
    Agency;
    that
    the
    landfill
    operations
    of
    RespolidLId
    ‘~ve
    ce~usedwater
    pollution
    and
    constitute
    a threat of
    water
    pnJ.ltic’.
    The
    measurements
    alone,
    as
    we
    have
    held
    in
    the
    past., are nob
    in
    themselves
    sufficient
    to
    establish
    a
    violation
    of
    Section
    12(a)
    of
    the Environmental Protection Act.
    Water r)ollubion as defined in the Environmental Protection Act
    is
    “such
    alteration
    of
    ~.hephysical, thermal, chemical, biological
    or
    radio~-~ctiveproperties
    of
    any
    waters
    of
    the
    State,
    or
    such
    dis-
    charge
    of
    any
    contaminant
    into
    any
    waters
    of
    the
    State,
    as will or
    is
    likely
    to
    create
    a
    nuisance
    or
    render
    such
    waters
    harmful
    or
    detri-
    mental
    or
    injurious
    to
    nublic
    health,
    safety
    or
    welfare,
    or
    to
    domestic,
    commercial,
    industrial, agricultural,
    recreational
    or
    other
    legitimate
    uses,
    or
    to
    livestock,
    wild
    animals,
    birds,
    fish
    or
    other
    aquatic
    life.”
    The evidence clearly establishes that this section has been
    violated.
    There
    is
    no
    auestion
    that
    the
    physical
    and
    biological
    characteristics of the waters pf the State being Ponds
    II and III
    and the stream flowing from them, have been altered by the pollutional
    discharge and leachate from Sites A and B.
    There
    is
    also
    no
    question,
    as
    the record clearly supports,
    that the leachate
    and
    pollutional
    discharge has nullified the same waters for any recreational purpose,
    have
    killed
    fish,have
    ruined
    vegetation
    and
    have
    generated
    odorous
    and
    unsightly characteristics detrimental to the public health and
    injurious
    to fish and aquatic
    life and likely to create a nuisance.
    More significant,
    however,
    is the threat of water pollution inherent
    in the present operations.
    The evidence does not sustain that the
    bower aquifer
    is polluted at the present time.
    However, the threat of
    such nollution
    is an area of major concern and must be abated.
    There
    was considerable testimony and dispute as to whether the upper and lower
    aquifeis were separated by an impervious clay layer.
    Testimony both
    pro and con in this respect was particularly speculative.
    However,
    there is no question that the lower aquifer runs beneath Sites
    A,
    13 and C and provides
    the
    water supply for the City of South Elgin.
    There is also no question that portions of the upper aquifier,
    the
    ponds
    on Site C and the stream connecting and running therefrom to
    the Fox River have been polluted.
    We must,
    therefore, conclude that
    a substantial threat of water pollution to the lower aquifer exists as a
    consequence of
    the pollutional discharges
    from Respondents’
    properties
    —17—
    7
    500

    2.
    Respondents aforesaid shall take immediate steps
    to preclude and prevent and terminate the leachate
    and pollutional discharge from their sites.
    Within 90
    days from the date hereof,
    each Respondent shall
    submit to the Environmental Protection Agency a program
    for abatement to accomplish the objectives herein set
    forth and within 180 days from the date hereof,
    effectively
    implement
    said
    program
    so
    that
    all
    leachate
    and
    water
    pollution from both sites
    shall have terminated.
    3.
    A bond in the amount of $100,000 shall be posted by
    the Respondents Vander Molens and a bond in the amount
    of $100,000 shall be posted by Thi-County Landfill,
    in
    forms acceptable to the Environmental Protection Agency
    guaranteeing submission of
    the pollution abatement programs
    as
    required
    by
    this
    opinion, which bonds shall each provide
    for the forfeiture of
    $20,000 for failure of the Respondents,
    respectively,
    to
    effectuate
    compliance
    with
    the
    abatement
    of
    its
    pollutional
    leachate
    discharges
    within
    180
    days
    from
    the
    date
    hereof.
    Bond
    shall
    be
    mailed
    to:
    Fiscal
    Services Division,
    Illinois Environmental Protection
    Agency,
    2200 Churchill Drive, Springfield,
    Illinois 62706.
    4.
    Penalty
    in
    the
    amount
    of
    $10,000
    is
    assessed
    against
    Edward and Everett Vander Molen, d/b/a Elgin Landfill
    Company,
    jointly and severally, and penalty in the amount
    of
    $10,000
    is
    assessed
    against
    Tn-County
    Landfill
    Company
    for violations
    of Sections
    12(a) and 12(d)
    of
    the Environ-
    mental Protection Act in the causing and threatening of
    water pollution,
    as found in this Opinion.
    Penalty payment
    by certified check or money order payable to the State of
    Illinois shall be made to:
    Fiscal Services Division,
    Illinois
    Environmental
    Protection
    Agency,
    2200
    Churchill
    Drive,
    Springfield,
    Illinois 62706.
    I, Chnistan Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution 4ontrol Board,
    certify
    that
    the
    above
    Opinion
    was
    adopted
    on
    the
    /~
    ~day
    of April,
    1973, by a vote of
    ~
    to
    C.
    —19—
    7
    501

    S
    S

    Back to top